I haven't set foot in the uni here but we've gotten so really good grads. The guy we hired to work with me is way above the level we hired him for and the DSP guy we hired is exceptional (though we had to wait for him to go get his MS).
And not only understand it, but be able to articulate that understanding in a way that John Larkin can follow. It might help if they had done some work with primary school kids.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I don't believe women have *ever* been attracted to limp-wristed pansies, despite the mass media's craven attempts since the early 1980s to normalise such behaviour. You can't overcome a million years-worth of Darwinism with 35 years of bullshit. Boy George & the rest of his ilk will simply have to f*ck themselves - or each other.
They do >:-} ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
s/Boy George/bitrex/
Indeed.
Same goes for those that say they cant help themselves being fat because its the genetic way they were made.
-- Kevin Aylward
If the limp-wristed pansy can make them laugh, women will be attracted.
People who see themselves as hairy-chested males do like to invoke Darwinesque survival of the fittest as as justification of the idea that they ought to be successful with women.
What Darwin actually said was that female mate-selection preferences could be idiosyncratic.
Human beings are successful largely because they can cooperate, and those that survive are those that can cooperate best. Hairy-chested males aren't famously cooperative. Limp-wristed males have to be cooperative to survive at all.
The fact that his ilk is still around is prove positive that their ancestors could breed, and leave descendants.
Cursitor Doom can't think straight - and his self-identification as a Mail reader suggests that he doesn't like thinking at all.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Get real dude. Sure, the average women claims that, "he has to make me laugh". Its bullshit. What they claim, and what they do, is another matter entirely.
Women, on average, look for things such as confidence, success and status. Its that simple. If they can't get that, sure, they compromise, like we do. Don't change what the ideally want though.
Cherry picking the few exception, i.e. a Gaussian distribution allows for all, does not a case make.
Ho hummm... It don't matter what Darwin said, the theory of selection, random variation and replication, stands entirely on its own.
Co-operation is only *one* trait in the vast number of other traits. Co-operation may get you stabbed in the back. Evolution is about the weighted sum of all the possible advantages traits against the weighted sum off all the disadvantage traits. All traits have both positive and negative aspects to replication.
One has to look at the details and do the all sums to determine what set of traits outweighs others.
Err... the point is that gays can't leave descendants. Only bisexuals can.
The point is, is that gays are "born that way". This suggest mutations from the otherwise norm. There are also hormones during pregnancy theories. Either way any genetic component, if it exists, has to be very indirect, like maybe more likely to care for other of the families offspring, which also carry the same genes.
The point is, that despite many claims to the contrary by self interested parties, gays run at about only 1% of then population.
I think its clear who has a problem in reasoning.
-- Kevin Aylward
It's not really secure to show everyone the path to your photo directory like that, honey pie.
I can John's confusion now. You do sound like Boy George.
...ignoring the fact that you make absolutely no sense. OTOH, I never expect leftists to make sense.
to
es,
rs.
o.
Verbal felicity helps too. Hairy-chested males like to think that women rea lly want hairy-chested males. More perceptive observers have the wit to not ice that the situation is more complicated.
And where's your sample population? A Glasgow bar doesn't really hack it.
ld
Sure. But what females are selecting for - in the end - are genes that a go ing to lead to more reproductively successful off-spring. For humans, the t ribe that works together well ends up with more surviving children. Group s election is what gave us bees, termites and naked mole rats and seems to be doing pretty much the same job with humans.
e't
ve
But it is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compare humans with comparable great apes.
This doesn't happen often, and is often rewarded by pre-emptive back-stabbi ng by the rest of the tribe.
sboth > positive and negative aspects to replication.
Sure, but when one group seems to have put a lot of work into the capacity to work together in large cooperative units, you can expect that the capaci ty to cooperate will have a heavy weighing, and the capacity to go around t humping your chest and asserting your individual capabilities will be less valued.
of
Humans have language, which is all about facilitating cooperation. This wou ld count as clue to the well-informed.
or
.Gays can help the survival of their nieces and nephews, as grandmothers hel p the survival of their grand-children. Humans cooperate, which is also the most likely explanation of the evolution of the human menopause (which - l ike language - is uniquely human).
om
So?
il
All too true, as I think I've made clear. Though it isn't reasoning that is the problem here as much as the capacity to assemble relevant knowledge an d marshal it in support of the case to be made. You aren't as ill-informe d as Cursitor Doom, but you do seem to need to read more widely than you do .
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Krw's definition of "making sense" seems to involve the person being discussed thinking exactly the same way as krw does . It's something of an oxymoron, because there's no evidence that krw actually thinks - he just produces totally predictable reactions.
If this were a Turing test, he'd have failed long ago.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:23:38 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: ...
elp the survival of their grand-children. Humans cooperate, which is also t he most likely explanation of the evolution of the human menopause (which - like language - is uniquely human).
Off subject slightly, but menopause is not quite unique to humans - female orcas and pilot whales also experience it.
help the survival of their grand-children. Humans cooperate, which is also the most likely explanation of the evolution of the human menopause (which - like language - is uniquely human).
e orcas and pilot whales also experience it.
They are social animals and do live together in pods, lead by single experi enced female. Again species where group cooperation is important, and where the capacity to cooperate is a survival feature, and one that would be sel ected for, rather than against.
Cursitor Doom and Kevin Alyward can bang their chests as much as they like, but selection is working against them.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
You have completely missed the boat. The phrase "Hairy-chested males" is obviously not a literal statement. It is a colloquialism as a reference to the overall idea of a strong, big masculine, great at hunting and fighting male. Someonethat can take care of themselves against all comers.
No one is seriously suggesting its all about a hairy chest. Dah...
Similarly for the "limp wrist" colloquialism.
Sure, and that means selecting males that have the largest probability of having offspring that find it easy to mate with other females. Therefore there is an evolutionary advantage for females to select males that are successful in attracting other women, on the assumption is that that characteristic is in their offspring's genes. So, walking into a bar with females on your shoulder, makes you more attractive to other females. It works the opposite way with females. A female with lots of males is assumed to be more liable to be already pregnant by another male, hence genetically useless to him. A male can have offspring by multiple females at the same time. A female can't.
This is truly the absolute route cause for all social differences and the double moral standards between males and females. Females carry the baby. This means different strategies are required to maximise genes.
It runs the gauntlet for a whole range of strategies, such as a female being more adverse to risk due to her larger time (nine months v 30 secs) investment in her offspring. This results in females pausing at roundabouts, causing males to run into the back of them because the males don't expect someone to stop when they can clearly see that no cars are coming...
No it doesn't. Group selection was killed as a theory in the 60s, despite the deluded trying to reinstate it in modern times. Bees, termites and stuff are all explained by the selfish gene approach. Read the book.
Ho humm... You need to read the whole post before posting what, essentially, has already has been stated.
So, relatively, its not a particular good strategy for your implications of:
They don't breed much, so what's your point?
-- Kevin Aylward
I'm still stunned he goes to a UU church. Really? Like, the most lefty-hippy-crunchy "I'm a very spiritual person, here to develop my inner self oooommmmm" Kumbaya congregation there ever was?
Never woulda guessed that one...
Only someone as stupid as you could come up with that one. I know thinking is out of the question but you really need to learn how to read.
Of course you wouldn't. As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
e s 80s .
ter
e
to
o g
Which is handy, but not - by any means - all that a woman looks for in a ma n. Less so now, when hunting and fighting aren't quite as important as they used to be.
Not exactly. The offspring have to be sufficiently well-fed while they are growing up to survive to an age when they can mate, and the females that th ey can get close enough to mate with are socially circumscribed.
If Conan the Barbarian has fleas, and can't say much more than "ugh" his ch oice of mates is going to be limited. Balderdash the Diplomat will probably do better.
that > are successful in attracting other women, on the assumption is that that
It's one of a number of features that get selected for. Being attractive he lps, being articulate helps, having been well-fed as kids helps. Being resi stant to infectious diseases used to trump pretty much everything else - it took us a while to get adapted to living in large communities with loads o f infectious agents being swapped frequently.
ed
ly
That's one of many indicators. Concentrating on it to the exclusion of ever ything else that's going on isn't a great strategy.
Perfectly true. You don't seem to have much of an idea which genes have bee n under selective pressure for the past few generations, do you.
Not that anybody else seems to either, but there is clearly quite a lot of selection and adaption going on.
ing
uff
You may need to read a better book. The "selfish gene" is the gene's eye vi ew of what is going on, but there's a real selective advantage in being par t of a group that works together well - the gene does see that it is gettin g more off-spring when it's carriers work together well, and while it has n o way of directly working out why, this doesn't stop behaviors evolving tha t work well for the group.
-
so
ly,
Really? You point of view is that mating behaviour is determined by maximis ing the number of mating opportunities - which you see as a proxy for the n umber of genes which will make it into the next generation. It doesn't work that way, largely because women are more interested in maximising the cha nce of having their children in the kind of situation where the child has a maximal chance of growing up to mating age and getting there in the kind o f condition that will maximise their chances of finding fertile mates with equally good chances of rearing successful children.
ies.
t,
ch
ted
of:
If 1% of gays is the optimal proportion for maximising the help given to ni eces and nephews balanced against the loss of direct descendants, the gene
- or genes - if any - are going to be recessive.
Equally, the 100% gay may be the relatively improbable tail of a bisexual b ell curve. Stephen Fry has been known to observe that nobody is 100% gay an d he'd be much better placed to document that claim than most.
Their ancestors clearly bred.
The classical Greeks, Dante and Smollet all made the point that there were quite a few gay men around - it's not a recent mutation.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Typical tripe from the self-anointed prince of left-wing darkness... if he can't present a cogent argument he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
I was going to suggest that Slowman is a "has been", but I'm not sure if he's ever "been"... outside of this group would anyone have heard of Bill Slowman ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
Yeah, its pretty much non stop attack the person, continuously from Bill.
-- Kevin Aylward
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.